Saturday, February 4, 2012

Mouse-to-Elephant: Evolution in Action

An international team of evolutionists reported this week that mice evolved into 33,000 pound elephants in 24 million generations. They also looked at other evolutionary transitions such as from a slightly larger, rabbit-sized, mammal to an elephant (10 million generations), and going in the other direction from a large elephant to smaller dwarf versions (100,000 generations). This relatively fast rate of reduction was a surprise for the evolutionists, as the lead research explained:

The huge difference in rates for getting smaller and getting bigger is really astounding—we certainly never expected it could happen so fast!

What is also surprising is that evolutionists could even make such measurements. One report explained that the evolutionists “measured large-scale evolution in mammals” and another explained that they “have for the first time measured how fast large-scale evolution can occur in mammals.”

It looks like yet another impressive proof text for evolution. To first order the timeframe, and number of generations, to morph mice into elephants has actually been measured? One might wonder how evolutionists could achieve such an accomplishment. The complexities of such an undertaking seem overwhelming. The very idea seems to be unscientific, and yet here we have not only an understanding of the process, but we even have sufficient detail to measure such large-scale evolution. Surely this is ground-breaking research.

Well, as usual, there’s a catch. In spite of the claims, the evolutionists did not actually make any such measurement. Not in any scientific, objective way, at least. What the evolutionists did was to compare various fossils and, assuming they evolved into each other, computed the time required.

Assuming the evolved into each other? Yes, behind all the headlines and hoopla, there is that minor caveat. Evolution was assumed from the beginning. Evolutionary rates were “measured” by first taking evolution as a given. That’s just the stuff of good solid scientific research.

An international team of evolutionists reported this week that mice evolved into 33,000 pound elephants in 24 million generations

To first order the timeframe, and number of generations, to morph mice into elephants has actually been measured?

What the evolutionists did was to compare various fossils and, assuming they evolved into each other, computed the time required.

Assuming the evolved into each other? Yes, behind all the headlines and hoopla, there is that minor caveat.

No they did't CH. They reported that MICE-SIZED mammals evolved into elephant sized ones in approx. 24 million generations. Not that mice morphed into elephants. MICE-SIZED mammalian ancestors, because that's what the evidence shows.

From the paper:

"The maximum rate of mammal evolution

Abstract: How fast can a mammal evolve from the size of a mouse to the size of an elephant? Achieving such a large transformation calls for major biological reorganization. Thus, the speed at which this occurs has important implications for extensive faunal changes, including adaptive radiations and recovery from mass extinctions. To quantify the pace of large-scale evolution we developed a metric, clade maximum rate, which represents the maximum evolutionary rate of a trait within a clade. We applied this metric to body mass evolution in mammals over the last 70 million years, during which multiple large evolutionary transitions occurred in oceans and on continents and islands. Our computations suggest that it took a minimum of 1.6, 5.1, and 10 million generations for terrestrial mammal mass to increase 100-, and 1,000-, and 5,000-fold, respectively. Values for whales were down to half the length (i.e., 1.1, 3, and 5 million generations), perhaps due to the reduced mechanical constraints of living in an aquatic environment. When differences in generation time are considered, we find an exponential increase in maximum mammal body mass during the 35 million years following the Cretaceous–Paleogene (K–Pg) extinction event. Our results also indicate a basic asymmetry in macroevolution: very large decreases (such as extreme insular dwarfism) can happen at more than 10 times the rate of increases. Our findings allow more rigorous comparisons of microevolutionary and macroevolutionary patterns and processes"

I note that isn't a simple misreading on your part. You repeat the lie at least four times in your OP.

Can't you go even one week without lying about and misrepresenting an interesting scientific finding?

They reported that MICE-SIZED mammals evolved into elephant sized ones in approx.

Thanks for pointing out that key detail. If it was lost or distorted in any way then that would prove charlatanism of the highest order. Although it does seem like he linked to the paper and others reporting on it wrote the same type of thing. In fact, just the other day I watched a youtube clip of Dawkins saying that people evolved from "apes" instead of ape-like creatures and so on. So I guess he's just another charlatan?

Can't you go even one week without lying about and misrepresenting an interesting scientific finding?

Since when is imagining things about the past based on the skeletal remains of organisms the equivalent of a scientific finding?

It looks like a little caped crusader's work here is finished. He may now rest easy knowing that he has rigorously specified his creation myths. It wasn't "mice" that evolved into elephants over approximately 24 million generations, it was mice-like creatures that should never be called mice. Imagine that! ...and don't forget the approximately either.

Just got through the appendix. Professor Hunter is correct. The so-called measurement reported is underlain by an assumption of evolutionary relationships in the fossil record (not to mention dating said fossils).

Just got through the appendix. Professor Hunter is correct. The so-called measurement reported is underlain by an assumption of evolutionary relationships in the fossil record (not to mention dating said fossils).

The assumptions for evolutionary relationships as well as radiometric dating are supported by over a hundred of years' worth of positive consilient evidence. Please give your explanation why those assumptions shouldn't be considered valid.

Let's say you're trying to verify the theory of gravity by calculating the orbit of the Moon around the Earth and comparing the results to the observed orbit. If you base your calculation in any way on the idea that the Moon and the Earth attract each other with a force proportional to their mass and inversely proportional to the square of their distance, then your so called "verification" of gravity is entirely invalid. After all, you're starting from the assumption that gravity is true just to make that calculation, and that's not allowed.

To be a truly valid test you have to calculate what the orbit would be if gravity were true but without actually including gravity in your calculation. Otherwise you're smuggling your conclusion in with your assumptions.

Venture Free: After all, you're starting from the assumption that gravity is true just to make that calculation, and that's not allowed.

Um, that's exactly how you test a hypothesis. You assume it is true, deduce the implications of that assumption, then test those implications. In this case, evolution is assumed, then it is compared to the fossil record. The implication is that the rate of evolution in the fossil record must be no greater than rates of evolution that are directly observed. Observed rates of evolution are in the thousands of darwins, much faster than the fossil rate, which is consistent with the hypothesis.

To be a truly valid test you have to calculate what the orbit would be if gravity were true but without actually including gravity in your calculation. Otherwise you're smuggling your conclusion in with your assumptions.

Thanks Troy. In the past I've pointed out that I was being sarcastic only to find out the responder was fully aware of that and was just playing off of it, a double dose of Poe. Since then I'm never quite sure whether to point it out or not.

"Well, as usual, there’s a catch. In spite of the claims, the evolutionists did not actually make any such measurement. Not in any scientific, objective way, at least. What the evolutionists did was to compare various fossils and, assuming they evolved into each other, computed the time required.

Assuming the evolved into each other? Yes, behind all the headlines and hoopla, there is that minor caveat. Evolution was assumed from the beginning. Evolutionary rates were “measured” by first taking evolution as a given.

Yep. I've asked MANY evolutionists over the years to show me alleged evidence for darwin's myth that didn't first require one to ASSUME darwin's myth was true...I'm still waiting.

"We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience;' but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists."

Smith, Wolfgang (1988)Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of The Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de ChardinRockford, Illinois: Tan Books & Publishers Inc., p.2

I've asked MANY evolutionists over the years to show me alleged evidence for darwin's myth that didn't first require one to ASSUME darwin's myth was true...I'm still waiting.

How to test a theory:

1. Determine what we should expect to observe if the theory is true.

2. Actually observe the real world.

3. If actual observations closely match the expected observations then consider the theory to be supported. If not then consider the theory to be unsupported.

What we call "evidence" for a theory is essentially real world observations that closely match what we would expect to see if the theory is true. Of course to determine what we should expect if the theory is true, we necessarily have to assume that it's true. Otherwise how could be possibly figure out what to expect?

You will never see evidence for any theory (not just evolution) that doesn't first require one to ASSUME that the theory is true, because that's how we know what our real world observations should be compared to.

Yep. I've asked MANY evolutionists over the years to show me alleged evidence for darwin's myth that didn't first require one to ASSUME darwin's myth was true...I'm still waiting.

The phylogenetic tree created from the spatial and temporal patterns of the fossil record is evidence. The phylogenetic tree created from the analysis of extant creatures' DNA is evidence. The fact that those independently created trees match to an astonishing degree, well over 99.9999% is evidence.

Evolution isn't assumed true for any of the evidence. The evidence drives the conclusion that evolution over the last 3+ billion years has indeed occurred, and that the currently observed to work evolutionary mechanisms are responsible.

I'll also ask you once again to support your IDC claims by producing more than an empty placeholder name. Show us the mechanism for ID, and the timeline, and some verified predictions, and the Designer.

You won't because you can't, but it's fun watching you Creationists wriggle and squirm to avoid any discussion or support of your own BS claims.

I'll also ask you once again to support your IDC claims by producing more than an empty placeholder name. Show us the mechanism for ID, and the timeline, and some verified predictions, and the Designer.

You won't because you can't

True. The bitterly ironic joke here being that Cornelius claims it is evolution which seeks to defame ID/Creationism and claim itself true by default, when clearly the exact opposite is in fact the case.

Just glancing at the previous thread you asked for mechanisms of ID several times and all anyone did was deflect and ask about the mechanisms for evolution.

Naturalists often answer "we don't know" or "We hope to have an answer for you someday," when asked about things like the origin of the Universe or the origin of life. They say the same thing when asked about missing transitional fossils and such. So why can't ID proponents say the same thing? Why can't we say we don't have all the answers yet?

So why can't ID proponents say the same thing? Why can't we say we don't have all the answers yet?

Aha. So you finally admit you are an "ID proponent". About time.

And don't be ridiculous. Nobody blames anyone for not having all the answers. The problem with ID is that it has no scientific answers at all. Unless you would like to lay out your method of detecting design in biological organisms.

Naturalists often answer "we don't know" or "We hope to have an answer for you someday," when asked about things like the origin of the Universe or the origin of life. They say the same thing when asked about missing transitional fossils and such. So why can't ID proponents say the same thing? Why can't we say we don't have all the answers yet?

Problem is you IDCers don't have any answers yet. Not a single one. Yet you guys still demand to have your zero evidence position taught in public schools.

How is that suppose to work? How do we teach IDC when there is nothing to teach?

Basically, instead of saying "We don't know, but we hope to have an answer for you someday," ID proponents say "We don't know, therefore we do know." For example, ID proponents will say something like "We don't know how life originated, therefore we do know that it was designed." They try to justify this line of reasoning by arguing about things like abductive reasoning (i.e. "inference to the best explanation"), but ultimately what they're doing is trying to use the fact that we don't know something as positive support for their hypothesis.

If your answer is 'We don't know' then your position is one of neutrality. If you acknowledge that you don't have the answer, then do not guess at the answer.

Saying, 'We don't know, but it was God' is a contradiction. If you say it was God, then you do claim to know.

I suspect you want to reply with something along the lines of 'Then why can naturalists say "We don't know, but it was natural"?' To which I would reply simply that we DON'T know it ('it' being origin of life, the universe, etc.,) was natural. But we must assume it was to investigate it scientifically.

To which I would reply simply that we DON'T know it ('it' being origin of life, the universe, etc.,) was natural. But we must assume it was to investigate it scientifically.

So it would seem that all evidence must be imagined to support a natural explanation. And if that cannot be imagined then one should imagine that further investigation will reveal it to be so in an imaginary future. And failing that, any evidence that is not consistent and does not lead to "consilience" should be discarded or filed away.

Given that you have devised a method by which whatever is natural will always be thought of as knowledge or some sort of progress toward it a question arises. What does natural mean? Also, should one be surprised that vast amounts of consistency and "consilience" are being imagined as the epistemic equivalent of knowledge when it is assumed that it must be so for the very method of gathering it to exist?

Ironically, if one puts aside the mythologies of progress typical to those who like to imagine progress from ignorance to knowledge and focuses on historical evidence in reality then conclusions differ. But there is actually no historical, experimental or empirical evidence necessary for your conclusions, naturally.

So it would seem that all evidence must be imagined to support a natural explanation.

Yep, that's pretty much the size of it.

Given that you have devised a method by which...

No, *I* have done nothing of the sort. That is merely what science dictates. It you have a problem with assuming naturalism then you have a problem with science, period.

What does natural mean?

It means the universe operates according to fixed, testable laws. We might not know what those laws are, but they are discoverable, since they are regular. All observations, including the results of all experiments, will always be, in effect, a demonstration of the laws of the universe.

Ironically, if one puts aside the mythologies of progress typical to those who like to imagine progress from ignorance to knowledge and focuses on historical evidence in reality then conclusions differ.

The idea that the universe consists of natural things, which are explainable and comprehensible, and supernatural things, which are unexplainable and incomprehensible, seems at odds with each other. Specifically, how could you know that supernatural things do not effect natural things in an unexplainable and incomprehensible way if they are, well, unexplainable and incomprehensible?

In other words, as soon as you admit anything that is supposedly unexplainable and incomprehensible in any system you're conceding it could effect everything else in some unexplainable and incomprehensible way. Otherwise, it wouldn't be unexplainable and incomprehensible. Right?

Or to put it another way, it's unclear how you can draw a line that divides something that supposedly unexplainable and incomprehensible from everything else.

So, before we even discuss the topic of science, there seems we a significant problem with labeling anything supernatural or natural, given the supposed nature of supernatural things.

Now, I guess we can study designed things, and see how they are different from undesigned things. We can then say that these are characteritics of designed things. Then we can look at organisms and see if they have the characteristics of designed things.

Thorton:

What do you mean by answers? Why isn't "God did it" an answer? We might not yet know all the details, like when how, how long, etc. but neither do the evolutionists. Archaeologist find things that they assumed were designed, but they don't know by whom, when, why, how, etc. But that doesn't chnage the fact that they were designed.

Ritchie:

Same as above. We can say "We know God did it, we just don't know all the details." And, I guess that if you define science as being limited to the laws of nature we are familliar with, then you are right. But why do you have to define science that way? Why can't you say that science means that we look for whatever is out there, natural or supernatural?

Wow, I think this is the first time I've been triple teamed on this blog. Let's dog pile on the creationist.

Because "God did it" explains absolutely nothing. The whole point of an explanation is that it provides details of what happened. IDC has zero details.

We might not yet know all the details, like when how, how long, etc. but neither do the evolutionists

Your IDC position don't know ANY details. Not a single one. The evolutionary sciences on the other hand have whole libraries full of details. There are entire museums full of details. There are hundreds of colleges and universities where you can study the details at the undergrad and graduate level and still only cover a minute fraction of what is known.

Don't even try to BS your way around and claim the two sides have the same amount of details.

Why can't we say that God creating every single atom in the universe handles all the details. God creating every species separately handles a lot of details. And why is it the amount of details that makes it a better explanation? Who makes the rules?

Might I suggest that you read "What Is Wrong With Intelligent Design?" by Elliott Sober*. Sober points out something (that Cornelius seems to agree with): how does anyone know what an unspecified designer would want? Unless you do know, you will forever say "we don't have the answers yet" since there will never be any answers.

You could always make something up about the designer that makes it's wishes conform with what we observe, but then I could always make something up that does the opposite. Some people might find doing such a thing entertaining, but it's really a complete waste of time.

Why can't we say that God creating every single atom in the universe handles all the details. God creating every species separately handles a lot of details. And why is it the amount of details that makes it a better explanation? Who makes the rules?

You can say God created the Universe. I can say my cat created it last Thursday. A South American people could say it was vomited up by a giant armadillo. How would you tell which story, if any, was right?

Just saying God created it tells you who not how. And how is what counts.

Why are the details important? Like a lot of people, I have Type II diabetes. It is treatable with diet and drugs. We know how to treat it because we know in detail how diabetes works. If we just left it at "Oh, it's God's will", I and a lot of other people would be dead a lot sooner. Like the girl who died on her living-room floor of untreated diabetes while her family stood around and prayed for her.

That knowledge of diabetes didn't come easy, either. The scientists weren't summoned by God to a mountain-top and handed a tablet of stone with the etiology of the disease handily inscribed on it. It took years of patient research to grind out the details.

Who makes the rules? We do. Hard-won rules based on centuries of frustating, bitter experience of watching people die from ignorance and stupidity.

"Why can't we say that God creating every single atom in the universe handles all the details. God creating every species separately handles a lot of details. And why is it the amount of details that makes it a better explanation? Who makes the rules?"

You or anyone else can "say" whatever you want, but if you want or expect science or science supporting people to accept what you say, you will have to adhere to the methods of science. In a loose way, those methods could be described as rules, but it isn't as though scientists are barred from devising new methods, as long as the new methods are scientific. And by scientific methods I mean that the methods must be based on discovering, studying, and explaining REAL things.

No one is forcing you to live your life by or for anything that has to do with science, and I seriously doubt that any scientist or science supporter has ever come to your door and told you that you must accept, believe, rely on, or enjoy anything that science has provided.

You, and all of the other godbots, DO accept, believe, rely on, and enjoy MANY things that science has provided, yet you, and a lot of godbots, DO constantly condemn science, or at least the parts of science that you see as a threat to your fairy tale beliefs.

I would REALLY like to see you and every other godbot on Earth actually give up everything that you accept, believe, rely on, and enjoy that is provided by science.

Why don't you arrange to have yourself dropped, naked, into a very remote wilderness, and see how long it takes for you to start begging and screaming that you want your modern scientific needs and conveniences back. Go ahead, prove that you don't need or enjoy the things that science provides.

Just think, out there in the remote wilderness you can simply rely on your alleged god to take care of all of your needs and desires. Just sit on a rock and pray for clean, healthy, tasty food and water, controlled electricity, medicines and health care, housing, temperature control (heat, air conditioning, refrigeration, cooking, etc.), paper products, transportation, communication devices and systems, clothing, tools and utensils, soaps, lotions, and refined chemicals, roads, flood control, electronic and computerized devices and entertainment, protective things, and everything else that you either personally own, use, take advantage of, or benefit from every minute of every day.

ALL of that stuff exists because of invention and engineering that is completely dependent on SCIENCE that is completely based on MATERIAL, REAL things.

Instead of thanking some imaginary sky daddy, you should be thanking science for everything you've got. If it weren't for science, you probably would never have been born.

So, when Cornelius says we're lying when we claim Evolution is science, this would only be the case if we're using his definition of science. When Cornelius says we're lying when we claim Evolution is true, this would only be the case if we use his definition of truth, etc.

Apparently, you didn't get the memo that science is no longer natural theology or naive empiricism. Your objections here represent kicking and screaming as we attempt to drag you into the present.

Watch the video, then come back and give your criticism of the specific points made in the video.

God did it is a bad explanation because it's easily varied and shallow

Natschuster: Who makes the rules?

You're asking the wrong question. It's not "who should rule". The question is how can we put systems in place to correct errors, as people create knowledge based on conjecture and refutation.

However, saying God did it because God revealed it to you and and God is all knowing isn't such a system. In fact, it's a system that is in opposition to correcting errors. If you think God said x and God is all knowing then, then x cannot be in error, which means it's off the table for correction. Problems cannot be solved. Answers cannot be improved, etc.

You can say, "God did it", but in doing so you're in opposition to the creation of knowledge.

Civilizations and species go extinct all the time. And they do so because they stopped creating knowledge, or failed to create knowledge at fast enough rate. However, we're unique in that we realize how how important the creation of knowledge is. And we know how the process works.

You amply refuse to listen because, well, see above. Your belief system is opposed to the creation of knowledge. If we stop creating knowledge we'll go extinct as well. Is that what you want?

Oh, that's right. Things will only get worse because that's God's plan. There will be nothing we can do. It's inevitable. But not before, because we're God's special creation. We do not need to create knowledge because God is completely in control. The Bible says everyone will see Jesus descending though the clouds, so we cannot go extinct before then. Right?

Yes exactly. In other words, he assumed God worked through natural means. Thus, discovering the natural laws of the universe is to discover the work of God. Crucially, he still discounted God ever breaking his own laws, ie. performing miracles.

Nothing wrong with that. I personally don't believe it, but I can't show it to be wrong, and science doesn't discount it. It is one of several ways people can be scientists and also theists.

Neal: What people like Newton did was assume that God did it so that it usually functioned a certain way. They attemoted to discover that way.

How does this assumption make them great scientists?

Without an explanation as to why God would use natural laws most of the time, adding "God did it" does't serve an explanatory purpose. As such, it's unclear how saying "God did it" made them great scientists.

In other words without a functional explanation for why God would use natural laws in some cases, but not others, assuming that God would primarily use natural laws is irrational.

We can distill it down to, "That's just what God must have wanted", yet again.

Why can't we say that God creating every single atom in the universe handles all the details.

Because it doesn't handle all the details. It doesn't provide ANY details at all. It's a pathetic excuse for intellectual laziness.

God creating every species separately handles a lot of details.

There is zero evidence for separately created species and tons of evidence against such an event. Again, just saying 'GAWDDIDIT" iS the laziest of cop-outs.

And why is it the amount of details that makes it a better explanation?

As a teacher you should be damned ashamed of making such a stupid statement. How would you grade a student assigned a term paper on the history of WW2 if he turned in a single sentence: "the Allies won"?

Who makes the rules?

No one makes "rules." If you want your ideas accepted then it's your job to convince the scientific community. In science the theory that best explains the empirical evidence holds sway until a better one comes along. No details = no explanation = IDC loses.

We explain our ability to make progress in that the truth about the physical world consists of chains of hard to vary assertions about reality. Therefore, hard to vary chains of explanations lead us closer to the truth.

However, if you think "God did it" leads us to truth, you seem to think that the truth about the physical world does not consist of hard to vary assertions. If this is the case, then how do you explain our ability to make progress at all?

Is it magic? Are you claiming our ability to make progress is incomprehensible? Does progress come from a voice in a whirlwind?

To rephrase, what have we been doing in the last few centuries that we were *not* doing for tens of thousands of years that makes the difference?

Let me guess, we make rapid progress today, but not in the distant past, because that's just what God must have wanted? But that's just another variation of "God did it". It's yet another bad explanation.

So you seem to be suggesting that we live in a universe where bad explanations are true as there can be no details regarding our ability to make progress.

But, on the other hand, you claim that evolution is bad science. Specifically, it employs a process which leads us to the wrong conclusion.

How can you claim there are good ways to make progress if our ability to make progress is inexplicable?

In other words, why don't you start out by explaining how we create knowledge, then point out how evolution doesn't fit that explanation?

Wow, I think this is the first time I've been triple teamed on this blog. Let's dog pile on the creationist.

You're a big boy. ;)

I guess that if you define science as being limited to the laws of nature we are familliar with, then you are right. But why do you have to define science that way?

Because if we do not assume naturalism then science is impossible. If we allow that miracles can happen then our results become totally untrustworthy because miracles might have occurred to interfere with them. And without experiments, we have no data and can draw no conclusions.

For a slightly more detailed (but still perfectly readable) explanation, see:

No, if you assume naturalism then the pursuit of the truth is impossible.

If we allow that miracles can happen then our results become totally untrustworthy because miracles might have occurred to interfere with them.

But if you allow for singularities, multiple universes and so on then that's fine and probably "natural" too? In any event, where is the actual evidence that being open to all possibilities and singularities always prevented the pursuit of knowledge in the past? Consider that there may be more evidence that allowing for the idea of singularities or things that seemed "unnatural" to the minds of some inspired the pursuit of knowledge of regularities or "laws." And there may also be actual historical evidence that those who fail to recognize the possibility of openness or "gaps" are as close-minded as the immanent frameworks that they imagine. Can you cite historical evidence that the absence of belief in singularities or miracles is linked to progress in knowledge or are you too busy imagining mythologies of progress?

And without experiments, we have no data and can draw no conclusions.

You began by assuming that naturalism is the equivalent of "knowledge" or progress toward it, so why play pretend about a need for experimental or empirical evidence afterwards? I suspect that there is one thing that you will not imagine to be the product of a closed system of ignorant mechanisms and processes that seem "natural," yourself and your own knowledge.

I don't now if they become totally untrustworthy. We can allow for the possibility of a miracle, while considering it most likely to be not a miracle. All of science is pretty much probabilities anyway.

No, if you assume naturalism then the pursuit of the truth is impossible.

Utter rubbish. Assuming naturalism is an essential component for the ONLY effective, reliable method of pursuing truth which has ever been devised - the scientific method.

In any event, where is the actual evidence that being open to all possibilities and singularities always prevented the pursuit of knowledge in the past?

Easy - allow for the possibility of miracles and the results of any experiment you thus perform might be the result of such a miracle. Your data is therefore useless. Ta-dah.

Can you cite historical evidence that the absence of belief in singularities or miracles is linked to progress in knowledge or are you too busy imagining mythologies of progress?

You are WAY overthinking this. The facts are simple - to perform science, you absolutely MUST assume naturalism. Period. Full-stop. End of. Without naturalism there simply is no science, no progress, and no knowledge.

Unless of course, you can do what no-one else yet has and come up with a method of investigation which allows for the supernatural...?

If you disagree with assuming naturalism, then you disagree with science. All of it. You probably shouldn't use the internet, use cars, planes, or modern medicine when you fall ill, or any of the technological trappings of the modern world, as all of it is derived from modern science. Each bit - every calculator, every lightbulb, every aeroplane, every prescription drug - is an example of the power of science and, indeed, naturalism.

You began by assuming that naturalism is the equivalent of "knowledge" or progress toward it,

If miracles happen, then this is a variable no-one can control, minimise or eliminate from their experiments. Thus, no matter what results you come up with, someone else can always dismiss them as being the result of a miracle.

We can allow for the possibility of a miracle, while considering it most likely to be not a miracle.

What reason do we have for that, exactly? What's to say that miracles don't happen every day? What's to say that miracles don't account for 99% of all observed phenomena?

You not only want to allow that miracles happen, but also to say how often they happen - all on absolutely no evidence at all, only your religious beliefs.

Since most of the time the Universe seems to operate by repeatable laws, that means that most of the time miracles don't happen. Science is mostly stochastic, anyway. Its all about probabilities. Allowing for miracles doesn't change it all that much.

What you want, apparently, is to prefix every scientific statement with 'Assuming a miracle did not occur, then we can conclude...' so that when it comes to conclusions you just don't like because they contradict your religious bias, you can reply "Well, I think I miracle DID occur, so I don't have to accept that".

What you're angling for, basically, is a killswitch, whereby you can allow science to tick away as it usually does, but suspend it whenever it turns up something you don't want to accept.

A rational person adapt their worldviews to suit the evidence. They do not just endlessly try to think up reasons to dismiss evidence that doesn't fit their worldviews. Evidence must come first.

What I'm saying is that we should assume a miracle probably didn't occur, since that's how the Universe usually operates. If we a deviation, then we can say that maybe a miracle did occur. Science deals with probabilities, anyway. We're never certain.

What I'm saying is that we should assume a miracle probably didn't occur,

That, my friend, is exactly what naturalism is.

If we a deviation, then we can say that maybe a miracle did occur.

A deviation from what? How are we ever to detect evidence which was brought about by a miracle?

We gather data. We construct theories to explain that data. We then run experiments to test those theories. If the experiments contradict the theories, then the theory was wrong and needs amending or discarding.

That is science. This system works. Allow for 'Maybe it was a miracle' and the system breaks down. That leads to data we don't have to explain, contradicted theories we don't have to discard. It robs us of our ability to tell good theories from bad ones because a theory which doesn't fit the evidence might not be wrong - the anomalous data might be a miracle.

It might be a miracle. but it probably isn't, since miracles don't happen all that often. Therefore, we can continue to do the research do determine if it is a miracle, or a new law, or whatever. Didn't Newton assume that God had to recalibrate from time to time. the solar system because of the orbit of Mercury. Then General Relativity made that unnecessary. But General Relativity required an even bigger fudge factor in the cosmological constant. That problem was solved by the Big Bang, which is probably the biggest miracle of all. But Newton never stopped doing the science.

If it is, science is powerless to identify it as such. All observations are treated as the result of enitrely natural forces. If you want to talk about miracles, you are not doing science.

...but it probably isn't, since miracles don't happen all that often.

Again, how do you know how often they happen? How do you know they happen at all?

Didn't Newton assume that God had to recalibrate from time to time.

Possibly. I vaguely recall something like that. But if he did, he was not acting scientifically when he did so.

That problem was solved by the Big Bang, which is probably the biggest miracle of all.

Please don't throw the word 'miracle' around loosely. It's just confusing when we are discussing the subject. What you mean, I suspect, is that you find it the least likely explanation. Which just speaks to your incredulity. It is, however, an entirely naturalistic explanation, and therefore is no miracle.

Newton took his science as far as it would go. When it wouldn't go any further, he called on a miracle.

What I meant was that the Big Bang explains the expanding universe which General Relativity needs. The problem is then accounting for the Big Bang. Waht made it go boom? Now, Stephen Hawking clams that his new theory means that we don't need God to explain the Big Bang. But that implies that until he came up with his theory, we did need God. Kinda look I said.

Was the conclusions of the mice/trunks done from vigorous biological investigation within boundaries of the scientific method OR was it done on CASTS of hard details of creatures within geological sequences?In short is this biology or geology with biological conclusions on processes.?How can one falsify the biological conclusion if first and only its a geological investigation? If no falsifying then its all a open hypothesis.

Seems unlikely mice became elephants!Is the evidence the weight of a elephant or a mouse???Got a hunch!!!

Was the conclusions of the mice/trunks done from vigorous biological investigation within boundaries of the scientific method OR was it done on CASTS of hard details of creatures within geological sequences?In short is this biology or geology with biological conclusions on processes.?How can one falsify the biological conclusion if first and only its a geological investigation?

I'm curious about what steps you've taken to try and answer these questions yourself. For example have you tried to view a copy of the paper itself? Barring that (it appears to be behind a paywall), have you looked at the supplemental information, which is free and goes into some (though not complete) detail about their methods?

Or were you going to ask those questions and simply declare "victory" if we didn't answer immediately and in minute detail?

I admit these are merely rhetorical questions that I'm asking. Can you admit the same?

Well my questions are making a bigger point about the whole investigative ability of evolutionism.I think they are great questions.I know the answers already.It has nothing to do with biological research and is entirely biological conclusions from casts of details of former creatures with presumptions about time from geological presumptions.

I strive to provoke a greater observation of investigative processes involved in these things.In short the great flaw in these matters was not the evidence but was after all the investigation failure.Evolutionary biology has nothing to do with scientific investigation of biology.my questions are too tease this out while everyone is once weighing data.

There is no error here or much less deception.They do say all mammals come from a small number of rodent-ish critters running around dinosaurs legs.They always say this and so its accurate to say evolution teaches mice to Dumbo.They do.

It is a unlikely and uncomfortable case to make that the glory of living/extinct fauna of this earth came from trillions of selections of mutations and resulting in the great diversity of creatures like rodents and big things and yet all cousins you lost contact with.

Seems impossible.The bible says this too for the record.Someone should apply the scientific method to these great evolutionary claims.Got a hunch there no proof and its all been a line of reasoning by people rejecting Genesis.

The Science News title doesn't say mice evolved into elephants. The title words 'Mouse to Elephant?' refer to the size change, which is spelled out in the very first sentence:

"Scientists have for the first time measured how fast large-scale evolution can occur in mammals, showing it takes 24 million generations for a mouse-sized animal to evolve to the size of an elephant."

The OP here claims the paper is about mice evolving into elephants. That lie is repeated at least four times.

But all you Creationists know how to do is lie about actual scientific findings and stick up for each others' lies. Jesus must be so proud of you.

ThortonFeb 6, 2012 10:29 AM"The header isn't the issue. I'm mad because CH read the story and deliberately lied about the content."

"CH said "An international team of evolutionists reported this week that mice evolved into 33,000 pound elephants in 24 million generations.

CH read the story and chose to deliberately lie about the content. Why don't you ask him why he did it."

I do not see CH making a point if the mammal was a mice or a mice sized mammal. He is discussing the metodology and the assumptions of the paper.Do you understand as a lie interchange mice sized mammal with mice in irrelevant part of the post?

I am not angry at all, Dr Hunter is writing for another audience . His goal is to portray modern biologists as so " religious" that they believe the mouse in your wall will turn into an elephant given a little time. A little misrepresentation for a good cause, no big deal.

Do the Darwinists here think that a mouse COULD evolve into an elephant? Why or why not?

Technically no. Theoretically an extant mouse species could evolve into a creature with the identical morphology as an elephant. That's because there are no known limits or barriers to the amount of genetic modifications possible. But it wouldn't be an elephant. It would be an entirely different species that looked like an extant elephant.

Elephants have their own unique evolutionary history with their own set of ancestors driven by millions of years of specific selection pressures. Mice have their own unique history and ancestors as well. You can't change the past and undo that history.

You can recreate the journey of Marco Polo to the last footstep, but you'll never be Marco Polo.

What would be a great experiment would be to breed a bunch of mice and kill the smallest 90% of each new generation, creating a massive selection pressure for mice to become larger.

If we did this over thousands of generations, it would be interesting to see how big the mice could get.

Sadly, this scenario is playing out in real life. In the 1850's a British ship landed on the very isolated Gough Island in the South Atlantic. At the time Gough island had a population of millions of birds with no natural predators. Some common mice from the ship got ashore with the sailors and established a breeding colony. In the subsequent years selection pressures have driven the mice to evolve to be 2-3 times the size of average mice, and to become carnivorous. They are now thought to be the largest Mus species in the world. The super-mice are decimating the nests and eggs of the bird colonies.

Rick Shine's amazing lab has produced a huge number of papers on how invasive cane toads affect evolution of reptiles and other animals in Oz. For example, black snakes have evolved smaller heads making them unable to eat the poisonous toads.

You're welcome. I love science and if you're honest in what you write we can discuss it civilly all day long. I played a lot of competitive sports as a younger man and have heard every insult in the book, so trash talking doesn't faze me one little bit. The only thing that ticks me off is dishonesty.

I do not see CH making a point if the mammal was a mice or a mice sized mammal. He is discussing the metodology and the assumptions of the paper.

No he's not. His whole post is based on the lie that the paper says mice evolved into elephants. The rest of the post is then based on attacking that strawman, saying there's no evidence one morphed into the other.

CH: "To first order the timeframe, and number of generations, to morph mice into elephants has actually been measured?

CH: "What the evolutionists did was to compare various fossils and, assuming they evolved into each other, computed the time required.

Do you understand as a lie interchange mice sized mammal with mice in irrelevant part of the post?

LOL! So now you admit it was a lie but that it's OK because the lie was irrelevant. You clowns are too funny, especially when you try to cover for each other's dishonesty.

"No he's not. His whole post is based on the lie that the paper says mice evolved into elephants. The rest of the post is then based on attacking that strawman, saying there's no evidence one morphed into the other."

CH: "To first order the timeframe, and number of generations, to morph mice into elephants has actually been measured?

CH: "To first order the timeframe, and number of generations, to morph mice size mammals into elephants has actually been measured?

CH: "What the evolutionists did was to compare various fossils and, assuming they evolved into each other, computed the time required.

I do not see how this change the point of CH post.

"LOL! So now you admit it was a lie but that it's OK because the lie was irrelevant. You clowns are too funny, especially when you try to cover for each other's dishonesty."

I was asking if for you is a lie. If that is a lie for you 70% of nespapers lies.And what do you think about this:

Of course you don't. You're a dishonest Creationist just like he is. You think lying for Jesus is OK.

I was asking if for you is a lie. If that is a lie for you 70% of nespapers lies.

And I told you the problem wasn't the title, it was the dishonest misrepresentation of the content. But please keep trying to defend CH's willful dishonesty Blas. It shows all the lurkers just how little honesty means to you too.

We should be even more concerned about the illustration. According to the scale proposed, and via a quick grid estimation, the mouse is approximately 1/70th the size of the elephant. Based upon a 24,000 lb initial elephant weight, the mouse weighs 340 lbs, give or take.

The skin color of the elephants is cause for concern as well. They seem ill. And the smaller one looks exactly the same as the larger one. Almost as if somebody made a copy of the larger version and scaled it to roughly 1/4 the size of the original. It's like they're not even real.

Rick Shine's amazing lab has produced a huge number of papers on how invasive cane toads affect evolution of reptiles and other animals in Oz. For example, black snakes have evolved smaller heads making them unable to eat the poisonous toads.

I'd love to hear the ID explanation for all these changes, including the 70 MY of different sized mammal fossils studied in the OP paper. Especially since evolution is totally untrue and all that.

Of course I'd also love for Jessica Alba to fall madly in lust with me. Both have approx. the same probability I'm afraid.

That is odd,perhaps the original had a notation" not to scale" and " an resemblance to living or dead elephants is merely coincidental"

Um....pretty sure Smith was just joking with his comments. That's probably why he forgot that volume goes up as a cube of the dimensions, not linearly. An elephant measuring 70x70x70 'units' has 343,000 times more volume than a 1x1x1 unit mouse.

If I were a contrarian I wonder why it takes 14 million generations to go from mouse size to rabbit size and only 10 million to go from rabbit size to elephant size

That's actually discussed in the paper. The growth is an exponential function that is also affected by generation time, which tends to increases with body mass.

The whole paper is here. Looks quite interesting although I've only had time to give it a quick skim.

Nothing in there about mice evolving into elephants though. I wonder what snake-oil peddler thought that one up?

That seems likely,it is interesting how significantly it affects the growth.Yes I think you are right about Smith,lately the Poes are strong with this blog. And CH? Jesus will understand,a guy's got to eat.

I was clearly mistaken in believing that the illustrative technique used to represent the accompanying data would do so to a more accurate degree. I find solace in knowing that the authors may some day issue a redaction followed by a complete rework with elephants and mouse-like creatures represented with the element of depth as well as height and width... and an expanded color palette.

Hopefully, this egregious mistake will not be re-purposed beyond this blog. I can only imagine the distrust it would cause by be being repeated four times.

Certainly not lies as blatant as this one you can't.Why do you do it CH? Why do you lie and misrepresent honest scientists and their research? Is the paltry stipend you get from the DI worth selling your integrity?

Thorton, you've been posting here for a long time. Don't you ever get tired of playing the kool-aid drinking idiotic jester for atheists?

Certainly not lies as blatant as this one you can't. Why do you do it CH? Why do you lie and misrepresent honest scientists and their research? Is the paltry stipend you get from the DI worth selling your integrity?

Thorton, you've been posting here for a long time. Don't you ever get tired of playing the kool-aid drinking idiotic jester for atheists?

Oh boy, another IDiot who thinks it's OK to lie for Jesus. Do any of you guys defending CH's blatant dishonesty in misrepresenting the findings have the least bit of scruples at all?

It really is an interesting exercise to watch you clowns sputter and bluster while not one of you will address the deliberate misrepresentation in the OP.

Smith," pre-fantastic four or post?" JA while attractive ( duh) not my type, much more a fan of Emma Stone in Zombieland .Good news on Graphgate,the offensive graph appears nowhere in the original paper so it appears it was not used as data base. I will strive to endeavor to persevere in the search for the source of your discontent.

"We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes.."

How much longer are you guys going to keep living in denial that Darwinism does not explain common descent? Serious evolutionary researchers are leaving you guys adrift. The science has moved on. Evolutionary theory is in crisis. At least catch up.

This may be a difficult concept for someone who thinks a 2-millenia-old book contains all the knowledge and wisdom any human will ever need, but the theory of evolution CHANGES. It progresses as science advances and new discoveries are made. That's exactly how science works.

It has been established long ago that there are other mechanisms, such as Horizontal Gene Transfer, at work which complicate the genetic tree of life. And indeed it may well be that we eventually identify so many 'additional mechanisms' that Darwinism itself seems to no longer encompass genetic history, as this paper seems to say (from what I can gather from the first page).

This, however, should be no comfort to you. No-one, but no-one (other than you fundies, of course) is saying Darwinism is WRONG! No-one, but no-one is saying we should abandon it - and, for that matter, naturalism - and accept supernatural explanations.

Face it, ID is on the outside of science looking in, and that is where it will stay. For good.

Did you also read this one, Neal, in which they extol creationist papers published in another vanity journal? They mention Andy McIntosh's paper among others. Said McIntosh happens to be a member of the editorial board. What integrity!

Article doesn’t say if mice acquired some carnivore body features, just size. If evolution changed size of the mice so fast I would also expect some of the carnivore features like fangs and stronger claws. I think this is important. If there is more detail on this natural experiment, please link.

Thought experiment. In a controlled environment scientist force mice to live near water abundant with small fish. At the same time they completely eliminate dry land food supply. Would mice try to swim and hunt for small fish? Would mice develop aquatic mammal body features? I guessing here: special fur, webbed feet or something else, which brings advantage in water.

When somebody mentions Jessica Alba, I instantly think of a beaver. I don't know why.

Then what did you mean by "How much longer are you guys going to keep living in denial that Darwinism does not explain common descent?"

Instead of "does not explain," did you mean "would not explain, if it were true?"

If I said "Gravity does not explain why heavy ships float," wouldn't that mean I accepted the fact that heavy ships floated?

Why didn't you just say "Common descent isn't true, end of story?"

Just asking. As a group, creationists can't seem to decide if they accept common descent or not. As you go up the expertise and intelligence chain, they seem to, like with Behe. (being at the top of the creationist expertise chain is not a compliment)

Ritchie said, "we eventually identify so many 'additional mechanisms' that Darwinism itself seems to no longer encompass genetic history, as this paper seems to say (from what I can gather from the first page)."

--

You have a lot of faith in discovering 'many additional mechanisms'. Why would 'many' even be necessary, since according to you guys evolution is a settled fact with just some details to be worked out. Are you back tracking on the 'natural selection + mutation' mantra as the primary means of evolution?

If you place a green filter in front of your eyes, all of the elephants appear green. Not just visually though. The fundamental input into one's physiology is altered based off of the subtraction of a single component – the complimentary red. Even though the other frequencies exist, the perception of reality becomes green. We have a choice as to whether or not we remove the filter. We have the ability to choose to examine why the filter was placed and who placed it.

If we choose not to evaluate or acknowledge the fact that we view existence through a subjective and interpreted means should we allow ourselves to condemn others who do the same?

Indeed they aren't, Velikovskys. My brother thought he was cool, showing off his Transitions(R) lenses last Thanksgiving. However, when I was in New York last, I got a special polish put on my lenses that block gamma-hopped optical subspace transmissions (GHOST), which advanced alien races can use for human mind control. I've never encounterd any of these signals (I hope, you can never be too sure) but who wants to risk it. For $50 I figured I'd err on the side of caution. While it is true, beneveloent aliens could in theory communicate advanced knowledge to me using GHOSTs, its probably just as well not relying on unexplained visions telling me to do things.

Needless to say, my brother was speechless when I showed him my awsome glasses. If you want your glasses lenses treated, just go to the N line subway station on 32nd street. There should be a guy there that can apply the polish. Failing that, donate $100 to http://www.nolascienceandmath.org/donate.html. Don't worry, its just a front organization. A 100 dollar donation will prompt a field professional to covertly apply the polish without you ever knowing when or where.

Smith "If we choose not to evaluate or acknowledge the fact that we view existence through a subjective and interpreted means should we allow ourselves to condemn others who do the same?"

"[Filters not being equal] would depend upon whom one asks. That would depend upon what filter both are wearing at the moment of inquiry. "

I couldn't agree more with you Smith, when you say above that we interpret an objective reality and that our interpretation doesn't change the underlying reality, regardless of who you ask. Its so nice to see that you are suggesting that. At least, that's how I interpreted the above.

T.Cook,Your brother is funny, he should know Transitions have that protection from alien messaging as well as UV and scratch resistance. Sounds like a good cause ( Nola science and math) . Makes me hungry for a snoball from Plum St.

Smith,The question" why". That's easy.Disassociation ,Jungian typification aid,but mostly typification. An examination of Reactive Attachment Syndrome is also helpful. Or least that is what I read.

I asked: ""Neal, is that a concession that you accept common descent?"

Neal: "LOL. No."

Then what did you mean by "How much longer are you guys going to keep living in denial that Darwinism does not explain common descent?"

Instead of "does not explain," did you mean "would not explain, if it were true?"

If I said "Gravity does not explain why heavy ships float," wouldn't that mean I accepted the fact that heavy ships floated?

Why didn't you just say "Common descent isn't true, end of story?"

Just asking. As a group, creationists can't seem to decide if they accept common descent or not. As you go up the expertise and intelligence chain, they seem to, like with Behe. (being at the top of the creationist expertise chain is not a compliment)

Derick, common descent is not support by the data, so no I do not accept UCD. There is not a good reason why anyone should. My grammar did leave the door open for you to question what I meant, so thanks for asking for clarification.

To clarify: "How much longer are you guys going to keep living in denial that Darwinism does not explain [your idea that all life on earth originated via]common descent?"

In other words, neo-Darwinian mechanisms and theories are completely insufficient to support what you guys regard as the fact of universal common descent.

All evolution is biotic change, but not all biotic change is evolution, is that what you mean?

You claim that common descent is not supported by the data. So if I show you a scientific paper that concludes common descent from the data, you will be able to point out the flaws in the analysis, is that correct?

Troy said, "All evolution is biotic change, but not all biotic change is evolution, is that what you mean?"

--Evolution by necessity would require biotic change. To be specific, if requires both unbounded and directional genetic change. This has never been observed in the history of science.

-

Troy said, "You claim that common descent is not supported by the data. So if I show you a scientific paper that concludes common descent from the data, you will be able to point out the flaws in the analysis, is that correct?"

Evolution by necessity would require biotic change. To be specific, if requires both unbounded and directional genetic change. This has never been observed in the history of science.

It's very unclear what you're trying to say. What do you mean by "unbounded"? What do you mean by "directional genetic change"? Clarify that and I might be able to address your claim that they have "never been observed in the history of science".

I asked:

So if I show you a scientific paper that concludes common descent from the data, you will be able to point out the flaws in the analysis, is that correct?

And Neal answered:

Yes.

I'm impressed. What books did you read or courses did you take to be able to do that?

Troy, why the post-challenge acceptance condition? Surely Neal will be required to explain his wild assertions in the course of his critique. I've been waiting to see him put his "[evolution] requires both unbounded and directional genetic change" assetion to the test. Please indulge us.

Here's a paper (on the author's lab website, not strictly legal) that I would like have Neal's detailed analysis on. It has received a fair deal of criticism already, so it shouldn't be hard to come up with something.

I see why you waited. It looks like Neals conditions are impossible standards. I'm currently understanding the definition of "unbounded" to be something which must satisfy a contradiction and "directional" as requiring the physical impossibility of observing for thousands and millions of years.

Perhaps Neal can clear this up. Maybe on one of the new threads at least. Start fresh. This comment system fragments the whole flow of the conversation.

It all makes sense when you understand that Tedford is an idiot. We've been over this same dumb argument of his a dozen times in the last year and a half. He has his own pet definition of 'evolution' that means he has to see a cucumber evolve into an emu in the lab in just a few weeks.

Good luck getting him to precisely define any of the other vague IDC buzzwords he likes to toss out.

Troy, basically, by unbounded change I mean genetic change in a population over time that can't be plotted around a mean within a stable range.

By directional change, I mean the observed accumulation of heritable, genetic mutations within a population that results in increasing genetic information and protein complexity which produces a new function.

Do you mean directly observed? You know these processes take thousands and millions of generations so by this definition evolution is un-provable for any but the simplest life forms. If so, why is logical deduction such an anathema to you?

Troy, basically, by unbounded change I mean genetic change in a population over time that can't be plotted around a mean within a stable range.

Sorry, but I still find that very vague. Can you give an example of something that can't be plotted around a mean within a stable range?

By directional change, I mean the observed accumulation of heritable, genetic mutations within a population that results in increasing genetic information and protein complexity which produces a new function.

Again, you are being too vague. What do you mean exactly by "increasing genetic information" and "protein complexity"? We can't make progress unless we are clear on definitions.

At first I took this as: if you take samples at time zero and calculate the mean=M_0 and then again at time T and calculate the mean=M_T then for evolution to be true there is some minimum difference D, such that M_T - M_0 > D.

That sounds reasonable to me, which is why I suggested speciation--a good way to determine a suitable "stable" delta.

Yes, T is meant as a variable, so use whatever value you wish. Initial population at time zero and then again at some time later, T.

| mean(population_at_start) - mean(population_at_T) | > D

You describe it as taking more and more points. Thats fine, but the important part for me is that for some time, T, the mean is more than some distance, D, away from the starting mean. (I added the || bars for absolute value.)

First I'd like to comment that your choice of label for this concept is a bit of a misnomer. Calling evolution unbounded makes it sound like you think moderen biology suggests evolution will result in organisms with tommy guns for claws or something.

However, now I get your point. You're suggesting something like Behe's "Edge of Evolution" argument. That a little change is ok, but that evolution cannot account for the bigger changes.

This is good, we're getting somewhere. Two important points remain however. First, how do you pick the stable region, D? You probably want to pick something that somehow describes when a moth stops becoming a moth. This leads to the second point. How do you quantify "mothiness?" Do you use a single morphological feature, length, the entirety of the DNA, what? To calculate a mean you have to first describe what you are measuring and how to quantify it.

Data points taken over time showing the mean moving directionally beyond the original range and continuing beyond previous ranges over time would be an example of unbounded change.

This has been observed over and over again. Consider Thorton's above example of the bird-eating mice. The mice have evolved to a mean size way outside the original range. So is that an example of "unbounded change"?

By the way: are you going to refute the conclusions of the paper I linked to above? You said you would, remember?

T. Cook, I'm not suggesting a value 'D', but rather looking at the pattern over time with many generations. Unbounded change over a large number of generations would clearly show the mean continuing to move past the previous range again and again (off the page, again and again so to speak).

Darwin's finches show an oscillation back and forth. A speciation event here is defined by mating preferences based on bird song and beak size, but not strict interfertility. We observe a pattern of diverging and merging. Different "species" of finches mating to form successful hybrids after previously diverging into different "species".

Plotting it, you would see a slight divergence from the previous mean and then an oscillation back with a slight merging.

Artifical and natural selection show nothing more than a radiation of genetic variety that is bounded (think dogs, cats, cattle, finches, peppered moths, e-coli. A slight divergence and then merging, again, and again. The fossil record show abrupt appearance of species followed by slight radiation of variation.

Evolutionists extrapolate about what "could" happen, but what we never observe is it actually happening. That's why I say that not a single empirical example of evolution exists in the history of science.

A large flat field can't be extrapolated as evidence for a flat earth unless you lack a horizon (unbounded).

T. Cook, I'm not suggesting a value 'D', but rather looking at the pattern over time with many generations. Unbounded change over a large number of generations would clearly show the mean continuing to move past the previous range again and again (off the page, again and again so to speak).

An event which science has already documented thousands of times. But of course an idiot needs to pull a Ken Ham - unless you witnessed it in person, it didn't happen!

Evolutionists extrapolate about what "could" happen, but what we never observe is it actually happening. That's why I say that not a single empirical example of evolution exists in the history of science.

Did you know that in Tedford-world plate large plate tectonic movement is impossible? Sure we can use GPS to actually measure the small movement today, but no one alive ever saw Africa touching South America, so it never happen!

In Tedford-world the Grand Canyon must have been dug by space aliens. It couldn't have eroded out. Sure we see erosive process at work today in the effects of flowing water and wind, but no one alive ever saw an entire mile-deep canyon carved, so it never happen!

A large flat field can't be extrapolated as evidence for a flat earth unless you lack a horizon (unbounded).

But a large fat-headed Creationist can have unbounded idiocy. Seriously, what kind of an ignorant windbag demands science recreate for him in the lab entire events that took millions of years the first time?

Seriously? We've had a few mice in our house (before we had cats), so I'm familar with these criters to some degree.

First, mice will chew on nearly anything, we had to replace our microwave oven because they chewed the insulation off the electrical cord. Other stuff too, like house insulation, wood, paper, foam, etc. So mice eating meat is not at all surprising. They sampled some at our house. The diet in meat would probably explain their increased size... however a well fed mouse that's been in the house all winter will certainly outflank his outside cousins.

Second, they are very adaptable and smart. They learn the traps and avoid them. That's why I'd recommend the careful use of Dcon (or cats).

This is certainly not unbounded change, but adaption to a rich meat diet. My guess is that they probably reached this size within just a few generations and the big boys took over the island.

Mastiff to Chihuahua dogs. Even humans. Species size can easily vary this much. This is not uncommon and has nothing to do with evolution. Certainly not unbounded change.

Selective breeding of the biggest mice on the island and a continued diet rich in meat may yield a somewhat larger mouse in proportion to the population, but do you really expect their size to be unbounded?

Plotting the data over time would probably show a quick increase in size over time from the original island arrivals and then a leveling off in size within a stable range. If the vast supply of rich meat were to begin to taper off, expect their size to oscillate back to smaller size mice.

Cornelius G. Hunter is a graduate of the University of Illinois where
he earned a Ph.D. in Biophysics and Computational Biology. He is
Adjunct Professor at Biola University and author of the award-winning Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Hunter’s other books include Darwin’s Proof, and his newest book Science’s Blind Spot
(Baker/Brazos Press). Dr. Hunter's interest in the theory of evolution
involves the historical and theological, as well as scientific, aspects
of the theory. His website is http://www.darwins-god.blogspot.com/